Speaking to reporters Thursday at a breakfast discussion, hybrid lizard/humanoid Democratic strategist James Carville dropped this one-liner:
“If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama, he’d have two.”
(Interestingly, the LA Times didn’t provide that quote in their article. Instead , they chose to convey the message cloaked in sweeter words, saying Obama “lacked the masculine fortitude of one of his Cabinet members: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Of course, in October, they gladly printed Sarah Palin’s jab at Obama’s immigration stance, claiming he lacked the “cajones” for it)
Aside from him possibly knowing something hermaphroditic about Mrs. Clinton (and something missing from Obama’s normal “junk”), Carville’s classy observation cannot be taken as that of just a democratic strategist.
He is and always has been a rabid Clinton strategist. A left-wing political operative not beholden to a party, but the Clinton war machine.
Just this past summer, when liberal pundits and politicians defended Obama’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil explosion, Carville slammed Obama’s decisions as “lackadaisical,” describing his thinking as “naive.”
Not exactly shining endorsements for the leader of your party from a prominent “democratic strategist.”
At the same event Thursday, democratic strategist and former Clinton pollster Stanley Greenburg agreed with Carville, using a bit more tact in his criticism.
“Mr. Greenberg noted, when various Democratic messages were tested with focus groups during the 2010 campaign, “any framework tested better than trying to make the case for success.”
“As the White House retools politically for 2011 and beyond, “I don’t think there is any reason why you can’t reset and start over. I think he can say, got it wrong. Not necessarily in the speech. But voters actually are pretty forgiving on leaders who indicate that they have learned something.”
Ah. I see. One of those “teachable moments” Obama loves to hoist on us rubes, just turned back on him.
And making the case for success?
Kinda tough when your economic plan is to pay credit with credit, spending like you got it, while unemployment flirts with 10% nationally. Sort of makes Obama’s statements like the following ring hollow:
“Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t,” President Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union Address. “And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.” The deficit is now $1.5 trillion, and the national debt is $13.8 trillion.”
Bwahahahaha!
“The government will collect $2.3 trillion in taxes this year. That’s well short of the $3.6 trillion it will spend. Fifty-five percent of that spending will go to mandatory expenses like social security, Medicare and Medicaid; 43 percent is called discretionary spending. That’s money Congress controls and allocates to more than two dozen government departments like defense or transportation, and the alphabet soup of agencies that the departments oversee. Two percent of the budget goes to Congressional pet-projects or earmarks.”
Under the democratically controlled congress, and Barack in the White House for two years, the national debt has bloated to more than $3 trillion, $700 billion more than all taxes collected this year.
These barking public criticisms of Obama by democrats, so soon after his party was soundly defeated in November, have the unmistakable stink of a Clinton trial balloon.
I surmised a while back that Obama would dump Biden in 2012 and replace him with Hillary. Biden does nothing except provide gaffes with at least one foot in his mouth at all times. He was tabbed for VP to theoretically compensate for Obama’s lack of experience in foreign affairs. He no longer offers any reason for continuing with the ticket.
Spending beyond means with America’s tax dollars does not equal effective governing. Now, with two years to show he’s been worthy of the office, Obama has proved he possesses no redeeming executive ability. His magical campaign rhetoric has become ancient history. For someone who preyed on the emotions of a weary electorate, he’s outed himself as extraordinarily aloof, with an arrogance outshined only by his incompetence.
While the rattlesnakes in the Democratic party bite eachother, Hillary lurks just beneath it all, patiently waiting for 2012, while allowing members of her loyal political reconnaissance squad to probe the battlefield.
She’s a shrewd shrew.
